Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums
Honda Jazz Forums => Honda Jazz Mk3 2015 - 2020 => Topic started by: Jocko on June 18, 2018, 07:26:02 PM
-
It saddens me to read the comments of some of the new owners of 2018 models. I get the impression, from reading the various threads, that there is more than a modicum of disappointment being experienced by many of the purchasers. Maybe this the norm when owners update from an earlier version of the car. Instead of revelling in the better features, and enjoying the new car, owners only see the things that are not as good as the old car. Perhaps it is an argument for always changing models/marques when you change vehicles.
-
It's one of those glass half full/empty scenarios.
We get used to things and don't like change.
Some can move on and some do begrudgingly. While others just like to complain.
That's the nature of the beast.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
-
It saddens me to read the comments of some of the new owners of 2018 models. I get the impression, from reading the various threads, that there is more than a modicum of disappointment being experienced by many of the purchasers. Maybe this the norm when owners update from an earlier version of the car. Instead of revelling in the better features, and enjoying the new car, owners only see the things that are not as good as the old car. Perhaps it is an argument for always changing models/marques when you change vehicles.
I agree, some people don't like change and bought Mk3 Jazz just because it is a Jazz even though it was a complete redesign. My 2016 Jazz was my first Jazz, I bought it because it suited my needs at the time and it was compared to numerous other cars. I liked it (apart from the appaling Atkinson engine) so I bought the updated 1.5 Jazz.
-
It's a pity Honda only gave us"Hobson's choice" on the 1.5 engine.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
-
It's a pity Honda only gave us"Hobson's choice" on the 1.5 engine.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
I agree, I would have preferred a 1.5 SE. I do not need a plastic bodykit! Better still they could have binned the 1.3 engine but that would have had the economy fanatics in uproar.
-
It's a pity Honda only gave us"Hobson's choice" on the 1.5 engine.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
Having more options in a car increases manufacturing costs and puts all the prices up, that is why Jazz only available in 5 door and used to be only one engine size (until 1.2 appeared). 1.5 may appeal to some but maybe not everyone, want more power = buy a Civic. want more economy = buy a Jazz.
-
Quite easy to put the 1.5 in an ex body, more choice. What extra cost?
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
-
It's a pity Honda only gave us"Hobson's choice" on the 1.5 engine.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
Having more options in a car increases manufacturing costs and puts all the prices up, that is why Jazz only available in 5 door and used to be only one engine size (until 1.2 appeared). 1.5 may appeal to some but maybe not everyone, want more power = buy a Civic. want more economy = buy a Jazz.
Buy a 1.5 Jazz, best of both worlds!
-
My EX Navi arrived, two months ago, today.
The only disappointment is, the noisier Atkinson cycle, compared to my three year old ES+.....
Oh! Yes.... I haven't managed better than 52mpg.
-
My EX Navi arrived, two months ago, today.
The only disappointment is, the noisier Atkinson cycle, compared to my three year old ES+.....
Oh! Yes.... I haven't managed better than 52mpg.
What do you do , push it?
-
My EX Navi arrived, two months ago, today.
The only disappointment is, the noisier Atkinson cycle, compared to my three year old ES+.....
Oh! Yes.... I haven't managed better than 52mpg.
What do you do , push it?
I know, I'm a bit slow. But, I don't quite follow?
This is the result of an 86mile motorway/ A road, journey to Bridlington, in the MK2. Full of holiday luggage, and at full speed limit pace, all the way......
(https://s25.postimg.cc/xdo3jyl3z/IMG-20170912-_WA0000.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I hoped for an improvement with the new car.......
-
Most of the improvement is going to be on the urban cycle. At normal motorway speeds the engine has to do a lot of work and that means it has to consume a lot of fuel. There's no practical way around that (better aerodynamics being about the only thing you can do). The fuel efficiency improvement comes primarily from the Atkinson cycle and you're never going to enter that engine mode at 70mph. Not even the CVT has a long enough gear ratio for that, probably because Atkinson mode just doesn't consume enough fuel to generate the power needed to keep the car going at 70mph.
You will manage to engage Atkinson cycle at 60mph or less on flat ground or downhill with the CVT box (and maybe in 6th on the manual) so cruising in lane one and being prepared to follow behind an HGV will give significantly improved mpg. That's how I nearly always drive motorways these days and in good conditions my Mk2 used to manage just above 60mpg driving the 190 miles between me and my Dad which is 95% dual carriageway/motorway. By contrast my Mk3 has been known to nearly get above 70mpg by journey's end with it once showing 79mpg while driving through the M6 roadworks north of Birmingham at 50mph.
Atkinson cycle comes into its own in urban areas and that's where it's saving the most. Places where you don't normally need much power and can therefore operate the engine in a leaner, more efficient manner.
-
I disagree. An engine is lightly loaded cruising at motorway speeds. It is acceleration, shifting a lump of metal and its contents up to speed that uses fuel. My MT 1.3 engine ran at about 2,500 revs at 60 mph and 3,000 revs at 70 mph. My 1.5 CVT engine runs at about 2,000 revs at 60 mph and 2,500 revs at 70 mph although this varies with gradient.. Cars use less fuel on motorways because there is no acceleration from a standstill and the engine is lightly loaded.
-
I disagree. An engine is lightly loaded cruising at motorway speeds. It is acceleration, shifting a lump of metal and its contents up to speed that uses fuel. My MT 1.3 engine ran at about 2,500 revs at 60 mph and 3,000 revs at 70 mph. My 1.5 CVT engine runs at about 2,000 revs at 60 mph and 2,500 revs at 70 mph although this varies with gradient.. Cars use less fuel on motorways because there is no acceleration from a standstill and the engine is lightly loaded.
Sweet spot for most vehicles is steady 30 to 50 mph (depending upon how aerodynamic shape is) - engine is certainly not lightly loaded on motorway as air drag is high, so even if car is in high gear turning slower the ECU will still have to pump more fuel in to keep up speed. Frequent acceleration around town is the killer - anything above about 30 mph friction and tyre rolling resistance take second place to drag as largest energy user. In fact IIRC electric vehicle range is determined at a steady 50mph, and as testers have found doing proper motorway speeds drastically reduces the range ( like 30% less range in some cases - even more if road is wet).
In colder weather air gets more dense as well to add to drag.
People who do 80+ on motorway are mainly company car drivers who do not care how much fuel they use. Traveling at 60 results in much better mpg for private motorists.
https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/80mph-motorway-fuel-costs/
-
If possible I always drive at the speed limit (ish) road conditions permitting. Every car I have owned or driven diesel or petrol powered has used less fuel on a motorway or long journey than when used in urban conditions.
-
If possible I always drive at the speed limit (ish) road conditions permitting. Every car I have owned or driven diesel or petrol powered has used less fuel on a motorway or long journey than when used in urban conditions.
I find my Mk 1 Jazz is the opposite. I can get better mpg driving in town, and on country roads, than I can on motorway driving. On the motorway/dual carriageway I get better mpg at 60 mph than I do at 70 mph.
-
If possible I always drive at the speed limit (ish) road conditions permitting. Every car I have owned or driven diesel or petrol powered has used less fuel on a motorway or long journey than when used in urban conditions.
Oh definitely. Measured pump to pump I'm currently hitting around 54mpg on my 80% rural, 20% urban commute. I think my Mk2 used to be around 51mpg on more or less the same route.
So there is improved consumption but it's not a huge amount. It might be that my tendency to kick the engine out of Atkinson mode when leaving roundabouts means I'm not seeing all the benefits it has to offer but I don't like dithering around.
-
I disagree. An engine is lightly loaded cruising at motorway speeds. It is acceleration, shifting a lump of metal and its contents up to speed that uses fuel. My MT 1.3 engine ran at about 2,500 revs at 60 mph and 3,000 revs at 70 mph. My 1.5 CVT engine runs at about 2,000 revs at 60 mph and 2,500 revs at 70 mph although this varies with gradient.. Cars use less fuel on motorways because there is no acceleration from a standstill and the engine is lightly loaded.
They use less than they would around town, true. However drag squares as speed doubles so there is roughly 30% more drag at 70mph than at 60mph. At 80mph the car is having to fight 60% more drag than it would at 60mph. And at least at 60mph the Jazz can operate its engine in the efficient Atkinson cycle mode.
-
My 1.5 uses a little more fuel than my 1.3 did but it is worth every penny!
-
I disagree. An engine is lightly loaded cruising at motorway speeds. It is acceleration, shifting a lump of metal and its contents up to speed that uses fuel. My MT 1.3 engine ran at about 2,500 revs at 60 mph and 3,000 revs at 70 mph. My 1.5 CVT engine runs at about 2,000 revs at 60 mph and 2,500 revs at 70 mph although this varies with gradient.. Cars use less fuel on motorways because there is no acceleration from a standstill and the engine is lightly loaded.
They use less than they would around town, true. However drag squares as speed doubles so there is roughly 30% more drag at 70mph than at 60mph. At 80mph the car is having to fight 60% more drag than it would at 60mph. And at least at 60mph the Jazz can operate its engine in the efficient Atkinson cycle mode.
So assuming the engine I using almost 100% of its power to cruise at 110 mph (which it can) what proportion of its power will it be using cruising at 60 mph? Would it be relatively lightly loaded at this speed or even 70 mph compared to 110 mph or accelerating from 0 to 60 on a wide open throttle?
You have to think about an engines capabilities, not how people use it. Most drivers never heavily load their engine even though it is designed to withstand it.
-
It would require something like a quarter of the power to overcome drag at 60 mph as against 110 mph. it would still incur similar friction losses and such, irrespective of the speed (slightly less at lower speed).
-
It would require something like a quarter of the power to overcome drag at 60 mph as against 110 mph. it would still incur similar friction losses and such, irrespective of the speed (slightly less at lower speed).
Exactly, at 60 / 70 mph cruising it is lightly loaded.
-
My 1.5 uses a little more fuel than my 1.3 did but it is worth every penny!
I second that, I love the extra power of the 1.5 engine for filtering into traffic lanes on the motorway and pulling away on roundabouts. Not as economical as the 1.3 but pretty good for a petrol engine.
-
I disagree. An engine is lightly loaded cruising at motorway speeds. It is acceleration, shifting a lump of metal and its contents up to speed that uses fuel. My MT 1.3 engine ran at about 2,500 revs at 60 mph and 3,000 revs at 70 mph. My 1.5 CVT engine runs at about 2,000 revs at 60 mph and 2,500 revs at 70 mph although this varies with gradient.. Cars use less fuel on motorways because there is no acceleration from a standstill and the engine is lightly loaded.
They use less than they would around town, true. However drag squares as speed doubles so there is roughly 30% more drag at 70mph than at 60mph. At 80mph the car is having to fight 60% more drag than it would at 60mph. And at least at 60mph the Jazz can operate its engine in the efficient Atkinson cycle mode.
So assuming the engine I using almost 100% of its power to cruise at 110 mph (which it can) what proportion of its power will it be using cruising at 60 mph? Would it be relatively lightly loaded at this speed or even 70 mph compared to 110 mph or accelerating from 0 to 60 on a wide open throttle?
You have to think about an engines capabilities, not how people use it. Most drivers never heavily load their engine even though it is designed to withstand it.
I think you're over complicating this and possibly just failed to understand my original post. A summary of what I wrote was that in order of 'least fuel consumed per mile' travelled we have:
* Steady 60mph.
* Steady 70mph.
* Urban driving.
You're not going to find anyone that would disagree with that statement. The extent to which those three differ in 'fuel consumed per mile driven' will vary by vehicle but very few vehicles (probably none at all) will break that pattern. I honestly don't know why you're trying to argue with me because you seem to have made up something to object to that I never posted.
At no point have I suggested that motorway driving at any steady normal speed is less efficient than urban driving. All I've ever said is that 70mph uses more fuel than 60mph.
-
I must have picked up on your statement,
"At normal motorway speeds the engine has to do a lot of work and that means it has to consume a lot of fuel."
Which I do not agree with.
We all use cars, they use fuel, how much only matters to the driver, or not in my case. As long as my car is in the ballpark for normal use I am happy, if not I will get it fixed. To date my car has varied between 37 mpg and 45 mpg depending on use. I have not done a long journey yet but will be doing an 800 mile round trip in a couple of weeks that will give an indication of motorway consumption.
-
You're not going to find anyone that would disagree with that statement.
I would disagree with that. My car gives better urban mpg than it does at 70 mph. 60 gives about the same as urban.
-
You're not going to find anyone that would disagree with that statement.
I would disagree with that. My car gives better urban mpg than it does at 70 mph. 60 gives about the same as urban.
Clearly, urban driving varies enormously from time to time and place to place. The official urban test cycle is the only reproducible benchmark.
-
I know where Jocko lives, his local urban is nothing like big city urban. It would be many drivers idea of driving bliss. :-)
Edit -
When my London resident BiL is here he jokes that if we see half a dozen cars at once we think it is a traffic jam. It is not that good but you get the drift.
-
I know where Jocko lives, his local urban is nothing like big city urban.
I can also get good mpg driving in Edinburgh. I think it is because almost the entire city is 20 mph zones Just stick it in 4th and tootle about.
-
I was on the Edinburgh city bypass this afternoon, speed limit 70 mph, actual speed about 10 mph! The KY postcode areas are usually quiet for traffic.
-
The city bypass is a nightmare. I will be on it tomorrow afternoon. Evening rush hour starts about 3pm. Hopefully I will be on the road home before then. KY postcode area great, except at school start and finish times!
-
I must have picked up on your statement,
"At normal motorway speeds the engine has to do a lot of work and that means it has to consume a lot of fuel."
Which I do not agree with.
Yes, I suppose that is a bit misleading. Although true it should be qualified with respect to the lower amount of fuel needed at below motorway speeds and the wasteful nature of urban driving (inefficient RPMs and frequent acceleration).I have not done a long journey yet but will be doing an 800 mile round trip in a couple of weeks that will give an indication of motorway consumption.
If you can handle a steady 60mph it will probably do what mine does and end up in the high 60s. If you go with the flow at 70/80 it'll do worse.
Aside from the reduced cost the other reason I prefer lane one these days is because it's more calming. I get out of the car after a couple of hours feeling no different to when I got in. I also don't get wound up by 50mph roadworks. In fact amusingly I tend to move out to lane 3 through them since I switch to using my GPS to monitor my speed and usually find that most people are only doing 45mph plus in lanes one and two you can get temporary bunching as people get scared by the barriers :)
-
On local, usually quiet when I use them motorways, I run at 60 or 70 depending on how I feel. Out of my area on a long journey I run at 70 or what the traffic will allow if it is busy. Being retired I don't drive for more than two hours at a time or four hours in a day. This makes Edinburgh to the London area a two day journey each way although I used to do it in one day when I was younger. Fuel consumption is only of passing interest to me because of my motoring anorak tendencies and as an indicator that the engine is operating correctly, brakes not binding etc.
-
On local, usually quiet when I use them motorways, I run at 60 or 70 depending on how I feel. Out of my area on a long journey I run at 70 or what the traffic will allow if it is busy. Being retired I don't drive for more than two hours at a time or four hours in a day. This makes Edinburgh to the London area a two day journey each way although I used to do it in one day when I was younger. Fuel consumption is only of passing interest to me because of my motoring anorak tendencies and as an indicator that the engine is operating correctly, brakes not binding etc.
Hi sky have you done many miles in your jazz sport yet have you put it in s mode much or just drive.
-
On local, usually quiet when I use them motorways, I run at 60 or 70 depending on how I feel. Out of my area on a long journey I run at 70 or what the traffic will allow if it is busy. Being retired I don't drive for more than two hours at a time or four hours in a day. This makes Edinburgh to the London area a two day journey each way although I used to do it in one day when I was younger. Fuel consumption is only of passing interest to me because of my motoring anorak tendencies and as an indicator that the engine is operating correctly, brakes not binding etc.
Hi sky have you done many miles in your jazz sport yet have you put it in s mode much or just drive.
About 2,500 miles, I have only used sport mode briefly on a couple of occasions. Motorway on slip and A road overtaking.
-
It saddens me to read the comments of some of the new owners of 2018 models. I get the impression, from reading the various threads, that there is more than a modicum of disappointment being experienced by many of the purchasers. Maybe this the norm when owners update from an earlier version of the car. Instead of revelling in the better features, and enjoying the new car, owners only see the things that are not as good as the old car. Perhaps it is an argument for always changing models/marques when you change vehicles.
i
Having bought one of these new in January (1.3 S), I've got to say I love it, compared to my mk1 which I run alongside it (and also appreciate), it's bigger, faster, better equipped, better on fuel, better technology, only problem was er' indoors complained it was underpowered (after a hyundai i30 1.6 turbodiesel). Once I told her to ignore the dashboard economy lights telling her to move up gears and don't be scared to rev it to get the power, she then began to enjoy driving it, I've found you have to be precise with being in the right gear at the right revs or it can be sluggish, I enjoy getting that part of driving it right (sometimes!), others might find it annoying, I'd guess this is what people are disappointed with about the mk3, on the other hand that's what makes the fuel economy so good, can't have everything. If it proves to be as reliable as my mk1 has been over the last 12 years, I'll be more than happy.
-
I agree, some people don't like change, even if it is an improvement. I don't understand why some people buy a car because of the name on the car. I think a purchase as important as a car requires research and an extensive test drive before a decision is made. The only thing I did not like about the 1.3 was the Atkinson cycle but that can be driven around. I put my money where my mouth is an solved the bit I did not like by buying a 1.5. Having the facelift improvements was a bonus!
-
I agree, some people don't like change, even if it is an improvement. I don't understand why some people buy a car because of the name on the car. I think a purchase as important as a car requires research and an extensive test drive before a decision is made. The only thing I did not like about the 1.3 was the Atkinson cycle but that can be driven around. I put my money where my mouth is an solved the bit I did not like by buying a 1.5. Having the facelift improvements was a bonus!
Totally agree. If they put the 1.5 in an EX before my next change is due (March 2019), then that is the route that I will be taking. Otherwise it will be an HR-V, subject to test drive and afordability.
-
I made the same point about the ex body earlier in the thread.
I like the'toys' in the ex and would have changed by now.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
-
I agree, some people don't like change, even if it is an improvement. I don't understand why some people buy a car because of the name on the car. I think a purchase as important as a car requires research and an extensive test drive before a decision is made. The only thing I did not like about the 1.3 was the Atkinson cycle but that can be driven around. I put my money where my mouth is an solved the bit I did not like by buying a 1.5. Having the facelift improvements was a bonus!
Sky whats the 7th mode like on cruising at 70mph will it take hills without having to change down or slowdown i mean as in that mode it must save on the fuel.
-
I agree, some people don't like change, even if it is an improvement. I don't understand why some people buy a car because of the name on the car. I think a purchase as important as a car requires research and an extensive test drive before a decision is made. The only thing I did not like about the 1.3 was the Atkinson cycle but that can be driven around. I put my money where my mouth is an solved the bit I did not like by buying a 1.5. Having the facelift improvements was a bonus!
Sky whats the 7th mode like on cruising at 70mph will it take hills without having to change down or slowdown i mean as in that mode it must save on the fuel.
No idea, I am in Drive 99% of the time. The CVT will be in its highest ratio when cruising at any speed on a level road, it will reduce its ratio as required on an up grade. It really defeats the object of a CVT to use manual ratio selection except in specific (rare) circumstances. It does a better job than a mere human so it is best to let it get on with it. Using cruise control the engine revs and CVT both vary to maintain the selected speed depending on the gradient.
-
I agree, some people don't like change, even if it is an improvement. I don't understand why some people buy a car because of the name on the car. I think a purchase as important as a car requires research and an extensive test drive before a decision is made. The only thing I did not like about the 1.3 was the Atkinson cycle but that can be driven around. I put my money where my mouth is an solved the bit I did not like by buying a 1.5. Having the facelift improvements was a bonus!
Totally agree. If they put the 1.5 in an EX before my next change is due (March 2019), then that is the route that I will be taking. Otherwise it will be an HR-V, subject to test drive and afordability.
If they raised the spec of the 1.5 - made the engine an option with an EX - I'd consider it. Best of all though would be the hybrid version that Malaysia has because that has the 1.5l engine.
As regards 7th gear whilst I don't know about the Mk3 on the Mk1 7th wasn't quite as long a ratio. That makes sense if you think about it. You don't want the highest discrete gear to include ratios in its nominal range that are barely useable. That compromises the whole box and selection of gearing. But with a CVT that's a none issue. As long as the physical size and layout of a CVT allows a given ratio you might as well do so until you get to ratios that are truly useless.
The CVT is also more readily and easily capable of adjusting. A manual driver could get fed up having to change from 7th down to 6th because of an incline on a motorway or a hill on a main road. But again that's not a consideration for a CVT because the driver doesn't care how often it adjusts the ratio and hopefully isn't even aware of it doing it.
So I would expect the longest gear ratios to only be available on the CVT equipped models.
-
I am deeply sceptical when it comes to hybrid cars. Who are they meant to benefit, the manufacturer to meet their C02 targets to avoid taxation or the user? They may be of benefit to the user in heavy traffic but I rarely drive in those conditions. On a motorway or free flowing A road the batteries, motors etc are just extra weight to carry. There is no free lunch or miles to be had. I would guess that electricity used as road fuel will be taxed somehow, the government can't afford not to if electricity ever becomes a viable fuel. I believe that battery power is a stopgap until hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective.
In the meantime OPEC are upping oil production by 1,000,000 barrels a day, we might even see a price drop at the pumps eventually. :-)
-
I am deeply sceptical when it comes to hybrid cars. Who are the meant to benefit, the manufacturer to meet their C02 targets to avoid taxation of the user? They may be of benefit to the user in heavy traffic but I rarely drive in those conditions.
I have my doubts as well. I view hybrid technology as a way to reclaim lost energy and as an efficient driver I don't lose much in the first place. For instance I doubt I'll generate much power through the brakes since I hardly ever use them. However I will reclaim some through engine braking. From talking to someone I know who drives in a similar way that should reduce fuel costs quite significantly. I think she said she's averaging over 60mpg on a commute similar to mine (10 miles rural main road, 2 miles urban).
But I'm not really that bothered about the environmental side of things. I'd prefer to minimise my impact but I also take the long term view which is that all technology improvements are good because they all have the potential to trigger someone to come up with something even better. Everything humans invent becomes a tool in our arsenal in the great 'battle against the universe'. If some of those have negative effects then so be it - you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. I also like technology if it works well and looks good and so far most of the hybrid dashboards that Honda has produced have looked good. And the technology does seem to work well.
Will it save me money? Doubtful. But then if I cared about money the easy way to save it is not to throw it away on a new car in the first place. Will it reduce my environmental impact during my ownership of it? Maybe. About the only thing I'm pretty sure it will do is somewhat reduce the amount of pollution my driving creates.
On a motorway or free flowing A road the batteries, motors etc are just extra weight to carry.
Which as you ought to realise is irrelevant. You, yourself, pointed out that it's acceleration that requires the most work from the engine. On motorways and in free flowing traffic there is little acceleration and thus the weight of the car is largely unimportant.
There is no free lunch or miles to be had. I would guess that electricity used as road fuel will be taxed somehow, the government can't afford not to if electricity ever becomes a viable fuel. I believe that battery power is a stopgap until hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective.
Of course, but there's no avoiding death and taxes so it's hardly an argument against the idea. As for hydrogen - no thanks. At least, not yet. Hydrogen is not a fuel. It's an energy transport medium. That's because on Earth you don't find it lying around. You have to make it and most of those methods require quite a lot of energy. There are I believe a couple of chemical ways of producing it but I don't think they've been perfected yet.
But really this is about a few things for me:
* The dashboards look 'cool'.
* The technology is effective and works well.
* It will slightly, in at least one way, reduce the damage I do when I drive.
* It's clear that electric power is going to take over in cars over the next decade. I'm optimistic that the next Hybrid Honda sell in the UK will have a more reasonable price. It has to because it'll be their mainstream offering so they can't stick a premium on it.
-
Here is one hybrid I would have, at the drop of a hat. Love the fact that for my Monday to Friday motoring the engine would never need to start.
-
How to produce Hydrogen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Current_production_methods).
Maybe one day it will be a clean fuel, but not yet :-/
-
Due to the fun of sport mode in the seat leon i had and the slouch it felt in other modes i had it in sport all the time and mpg was still great, i wanted to know if in sport mode it still can be left to change for you.
-
It's an overpriced VW. :-)
-
Got to over 1000 miles today in my new Jazz in just over 2 weeks.. it will be *much* less mileage normally (just wanted to drive new car etc) but I will use it way more than mk1 to travel around UK for trips. CVT, cruise control and modern interior / comfort makes a huge difference.
Dare I say im happy with my new car .... I went for another early morning drive today with the car finally all setup how I want and now im more or less used to the mk3 + cvt *driving characteristics* and all dash controls .. Ill give it a first wash on Monday 8)
60 mpg on longer runs and 44-50 mixed driving... now please no issues ever ... ;)
Edit : also love keyless ... I still sometimes reach for my key when approaching the car ... old habits.
-
Got to over 1000 miles today in my new Jazz in just over 2 weeks.. it will be *much* less mileage normally (just wanted to drive new car etc) but I will use it way more than mk1 to travel around UK for trips. CVT, cruise control and interior comfort makes a huge difference.
Dare I say im happy with my new car .... I went for another early morning drive today with the car finally all setup how I want and now im more or less used to the mk3 + cvt *driving characteristics* and all dash controls .. Ill give it a first wash on Monday 8)
60 mpg on longer runs and 44-50 mixed driving... now please no issues ever ... ;)
Hopefully none for you. To be fair the issues I've had have never interfered with me driving it (although having the electric door mirrors start swivelling back and forth was distracting). It's just that I do expect perfection from Honda based on the last 15 years of ownership of several models and it bothers me that their standards seem to have slipped.
It is a nice car to drive - with the possible minor exception of that Atkinson/Otto switch over which they might have fixed in the face lifted version.